Attitude towards corporal punishment of children - … research Latvia 2009.pdf · Research:...

Attitude towards corporal punishment

of children

Survey of Latvia’s Population

April 2009

Marketing and public opinion research centre SKDS

tirgus un sabiedriskās domas pētījumu centrs market and public opinion research centre

SKDS, April 2009 2

Contents

Technical Information of the Survey....................................................................................... 3

Basic Terms........................................................................................................................... 4

Socio-Demographic Profile of Respondents........................................................................... 5

The Accuracy of the Results .................................................................................................. 6

1. Opinion about subjecting children to corporal punishment in Latvia ................................... 7

2. Attitude towards corporal punishment as a method of upbringing children ....................... 10

Tables of results .................................................................................................................. 12

Frequencies......................................................................................................................... 13

Answers in Socio-demographic Groups ............................................................................... 15

1. Regarding the entire population of children in your country as 100%, please

estimate, what percentage of them experience corporal punishment (or

beating/spanking as a penalty) in their families............................................................................15

2. In your opinion is corporal punishment of children a method of upbringing which…. ..............16

Questionnaire used in the survey......................................................................................... 17

Research: Attitude towards corporal punishment of children

SKDS, April 2009 3

Technical Information of the Survey

PERFORMER OF THE RESEARCH Research centre SKDS

POPULATION Permanent residents of Latvia at the age of 18 to 74

PLANNED SAMPLE SIZE 1000 respondents (representative sample of the general population)

REACHED SAMPLE SIZE 1010 respondents

SAMPLING METHOD Stratified random sampling

STRATIFICATION FEATURES Administrative and territorial, and national

RESEARCH METHOD Personal (face-to-face) interviews at the places of residence of respondents

GECHARTICAL COVERAGE All regions of Latvia (123 sampling points)

TIME OF SURVEY From 14.04.2009. to 22.04.2009.

COMPARISON OF THE REACHED SAMPLE WITH THE STATISTICS OF THE POPULATION

The number of

respondents in the sample (%) before weighting

The number of respondents in the sample

(%) after weighting

Data from the Ministry of Interior, Population

Register as of 01.01.08.

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0

REGION

Riga 33.9 32.2 32.2

Pieriga 16.3 16.8 16.9

Vidzeme 11.3 10.2 10.2

Kurzeme 12.0 13.1 13.1

Zemgale 10.5 12.3 12.3

Latgale 16.0 15.3 15.3

SEX

Men 46.3 46.9 46.9

Women 53.7 53.1 53.1

NATIONALITY

Latvian 60.3 57.1 57.1

Other 39.7 42.9 42.9

AGE

18 - 24 15.0 15.0 15.0

25 - 34 19.7 19.1 19.1

35 - 44 17.6 18.5 18.5

45 - 54 19.8 19.3 19.3

55 - 74 27.9 28.2 28.2

EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Employed 56.1 56.1

Unemployed 43.9 43.9

EDUCATION

Basic education 10.6 10.8

Secondary, secondary vocational education

67.4 67.6

Higher education 22.0 21.6

CITIZENSHIP

LR citizens 85.0 83.7

Respondents without LR citizenship

15.0 16.3

The data were subject to the weighting procedure. Unweighted count and weighted percents were used in the report.


SKDS, April 2009 4

Basic terms SAMPLE Micromodel of the population of Latvia

REGION Rīga – Riga city Pieriga – Jūrmala, Limbaži and Limbaži district, Ogre and Ogre district, Rīga district, Tukums andTukums district. Vidzeme - Alūksne and Alūksne district, Cēsis and Cēsis district, Gulbene and Gulbene district, Madona and Madona district, Valka and Valka district, Valmiera and Valmiera district. Kurzeme – Kuldīga and Kuldīga district, Liepāja and Liepāja district, Saldus and Saldus district, Talsi and Talsi district, Ventspils and Ventspils district. Zemgale – Aizkraukle and Aizkraukle district, Bauska and Bauska district, Dobele and Dobele district, Jelgava and Jelgava district, Jēkabpils and Jēkabpils district. Latgale – Balvi and Balvi district, Daugavpils and Daugavpils district, Krāslava and Krāslava district, Ludza and Ludza district, PreiĜi and PreiĜi district, Rēzekne and Rēzekne district.

TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL AREA Riga – Riga city. Other city – Daugavpils, Liepaja, Jelgava, Ventspils, Rezekne, Jurmala, regional centres, other cities. Rural areas – villages, countryside.

EDUCATION Basic – a respondent having basic or unfinished secondary education. Secondary, secondary vocational – a respondent having general secondary education, secondary vocational or unfinished higher education. Higher– a respondent having higher education.

SECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT Public sector – respondents employed in state institutions or enterprises with the state capital. Private sector – respondents employed in companies with private capital. Unemployed – respondents: housewives, retired persons, pupils, students, unemployed persons.

OCCUPATION Manager – senior or middle level manager: manager of an enterprise, company, organisation, department, a leading specialist in an enterprise or institution. Specialist, state official – state official or employee in a state or municipal institution or private company; does not do a physical job. Worker – ordinary employee in industry, building, agriculture, trading, services, public catering; does a physical job. Farmer – a person who works in his/her own farm. Self-employed – a self-employed person, also a professional specialist (a lawyer, a doctor, etc.), owns his/her business. Retired – a retired person, who is not employed, also retired due to disabilities. Pupil, student – a person who attends a day department of any educational establishment. Housewife – a person who looks after his/her house and currently is not employed; a person on maternity leave. Unemployed – a person in his/her employment age but without work.

LEVEL OF INCOME Average income per family member in a month, including all types of income (salaries, study grants, benefits, pensions, etc.) after taxes. Income was divided in quintiles. Low – till Ls99 Medium low – LVL100 to LVL129 Medium – LVL130 to LVL170 Medium high – LVL171 to LVL259 High – LVL260 and more


SKDS, April 2009 5

Socio-Demographic Profile of Respondents

Base: all respondents, n=1010

63.4

36.3

33.0

34.8

32.2

15.3

12.3

13.1

10.2

16.8

32.2

13.7

13.7

15.1

13.5

13.9

43.9

36.9

19.2

16.3

40.7

58.6

42.9

57.1

67.6

10.8

28.2

19.3

18.5

19.1

15.0

53.1

46.9

21.6

83.7

0 30 60 90

there are no children under 18 (n=641)

there are children under 18 (n=366)

rural area (n=330)

other city (n=338)

Riga (n=342)

Latgale (n=162)

Zemgale (n=106)

Kurzeme (n=121)

Vidzeme (n=114)

Pieriga (n=165)

Riga (n=342)

high income (n=141)

medium high income (n=136)

medium income (n=153)

medium low income (n=136)

low income (n=141)

unemployed (n=443)

private sector (n=370)

public sector (n=197)

Respondents w ithout LR citizenship (n=152)

LR citizens (n=858)

Russian as communication language in the family (n=387)

Latvian as communication language in the family(n=616)

other (n=401)

Latvian (n=609)

higher education (n=222)

secondary education (n=681)

basic education (n=107)

55 and older (n=282)

45 - 54 (n=200)

35 - 44 (n=178)

25 - 34 (n=199)

18 - 24 (n=151)

w omen (n=542)

men (n=468)%

%


SKDS, April 2009 6

The Accuracy of the Results

Using the results it is necessary to take into account the statistical error. The differences,

which are within the statistical error limit or less, are considered as insignificant.

Statistical error is calculated with this equation:

______________

SE = q x √√√√ππππ x ( 100 - ππππ ) / n

where :

SE - statistical error;

q - coefficient = 1.96 for 95% probability;

π - division of answers (%);

n - number of respondents.

TABLE OF DETERMINATION OF STATISTICAL ERROR

(with 95 % probability )

Division of

answers (%)

Sample size [ n ] =

50 75 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1500 2000

1 or 99 2.8 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4

2 or 98 3.9 3.2 2.7 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6

4 or 96 5.4 4.5 3.8 2.7 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9

6 or 94 6.6 5.4 4.7 3.3 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0

8 or 92 7.5 6.1 5.3 3.8 3.1 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2

10 or 90 8.3 6.8 5.9 4.2 3.4 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3

12 or 88 9.0 7.4 6.4 4.5 3.7 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4

15 or 85 9.9 8.0 7.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.6

18 or 82 10.7 8.7 7.5 5.3 4.4 3.8 3.4 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.7

20 or 80 11.1 9.1 7.8 5.5 4.5 3.9 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.8

22 or 78 11.5 9.4 8.1 5.7 4.7 4.1 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.8

25 or 75 12.0 9.8 8.5 6.0 4.9 4.2 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.2 1.9

28 or 72 12.5 10.2 8.8 6.2 5.1 4.4 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.0

30 or 70 12.7 10.4 9.0 6.4 5.2 4.5 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.0

32 or 68 12.9 10.6 9.1 6.5 5.3 4.6 4.1 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.1

35 or 65 13.2 10.8 9.4 6.6 5.4 4.7 4.2 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.1

40 or 60 13.6 11.1 9.6 6.8 5.5 4.8 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.2

45 or 55 13.8 11.3 9.8 6.9 5.6 4.9 4.4 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.2

50 or 50 13.9 11.3 9.8 6.9 5.7 4.9 4.4 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.2

In order to determine the statistical error for definite target group audience the unweighted

number n of this target group is needed and the division of answers in percents. Using these values it is

possible to find the statistical errors in the corresponding part of the table +/- % with 95% probability.

For example, if as a result of the research 8.5% of all the surveyed population of Latvia

(number of respondents n=1010) mentioned that in their opinion corporal punishment as a method of

upbringing children can be used if parents consider it as effective, then with 95% probability we can

assert that the statistical error here is within + / -1.7%. It follows that 6.8%-10.2% of respondents

support the use of corporal punishment as a method of upbringing.


SKDS, April 2009 7

1. Opinion about subjecting children to corporal punishment in

Latvia

In the survey of Latvia’s population carried out in April 2009, the participants of the

research were asked to evaluate what percentage of children in Latvia in their opinion is

subjected to corporal punishment (beating, spanking as punishment) in their families.

Data about the answers of respondents is summarized in the following chart (it

should be added that respondents were not offered variants of answers, they named the

appropriate number).

%

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.1

3.1

0.1

6.7

0.1

3.2

0.1 0.2

0.1

9.2

3.5

0.1

10.7

1.6

0.2

8.0

0.1

1.6

16.2

0.8

8.0

0.1 0.8

0.1

0.1

6.3

0.1 0.9

0.1

0.1

0.1

5.1

0.3 0.7

0.2

2.9

0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.2

4.4

0.1

0

5

10

15

20

0%

1%

2%

3%

5%

6%

10

%

11

%

15

%

16

%

17

%

18

%

20

%

25

%

28

%

29

%

30

%

35

%

37

%

40

%

42

%

45

%

50

%

55

%

60

%

63

%

65

%

66

%

68

%

70

%

72

%

75

%

76

%

78

%

79

%

80

%

82

%

85

%

89

%

90

%

94

%

95

%

98

%

99

%

10

0%

NA

Answers to question: "Regarding the entire population of children in your country as 100%,

please estimate, what percentage of them experience corporal punishment (or

beating/spanking as a penalty) in their families." (04.2009.)


The chart shows that the most frequently mentioned answer is “50%” – the opinion

that half of the children in Latvia suffer from corporal punishment (beating, spanking) was

mentioned by 16% of respondents. 0.7% of the surveyed think that none of the children in

Latvia are subjected to corporal punishment and 1.2% express the opinion that all the

children in Latvia are subjected to such means of punishment.

For analytic purposes the data was gathered in larger groups. Data about the

proportion of respondents in each group is summarized in the following chart.

0%-20% of children

24.1%

No answ er

4.4%61%-100% of

children

20.6%

41%-60% of children

26.7%

21%-40% of children

24.2%

Answers to question "Regarding the entire population of children in your country as 100%,

please estimate, what percentage of them experience corporal punishment (or beating/

spanking as a penalty) in their families." (04.2009.)

Base: all

respondents, n=1010

In correspondence with the research data 24% of the population think that up to

20% of children in Latvia are subjected to corporal punishment. Approximately the same


SKDS, April 2009 8

number of respondents (24%) believe that 21%-40% of children undergo such means of

punishment but the opinion that such punishment affects 41%-60% of children was

mentioned slightly more frequently (27%). The numbers from 61% to 100% were named

by 21% of respondents.

Respondents answered an analogue question in October 2005. The following

chart contains the comparison of data.

24.2

23.1 24.5

20.6

20.5

4.4

5.726.2

24.1 26.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

04.2009. (n=1010)

10.2005. (n=1015)

%

%

0%-20% of children 21%-40% of children 41%-60% of children 61%-100% of children No answ er

Base: all

respondents


please estimate, what percentage of them experience corporal punishment (or beating/spanking

as a penalty) in their families." : comparison of survey data in 10.2005. and in 04.2009.

When analyzing data it can be viewed that since the year 2005 the opinion of

respondents about the amount of children subjected to corporal punishment has not

changed significantly.


SKDS, April 2009 9

The following chart summarizes the data about the opinion on this question in

different socio-demographic groups.

24.1 27.4

21.2

22.8

21.1 26.0

22.9 26.4 31.4

23.6

22.1

23.5

24.8

19.4

19.8 25.8

24.3

25.9

26.5

19.3 26.1

22.7

19.7 26.5

23.1

22.7

24.8

23.8

24.2

25.0

23.5 25.0

23.4

23.6 26.0

27.9

24.4

25.5

23.1

23.0 24.5

23.8

25.3

27.2

21.9 22.5 25.5

25.9

23.2

27.4

31.9

25.7

23.7

27.0

27.5

27.5

25.7

36.2

26.1

29.1

28.3

24.9

26.5

27.7

16.4

26.2

26.2

34.0

26.5

28.6

25.0 26.6 26.6

22.4

27.9

20.2

18.1

16.6 12.7

20.5

24.8 20.1

21.2

22.4

24.8 17.4

20.9

20.3

16.9

27.7

16.5

19.0

23.9

21.9

16.9 18.4

26.4 23.3

19.1

3.5 3.4 2.5

3.3

29.9

22.1

21.6 22.4

17.3

25.4

19.2

31.9

23.8

26.1

21.9

24.7

26.7

28.6

22.418.6

20.6

4.4

5.0

6.25.3

6.2

6.24.83.3

4.5 3.8 3.5

4.4

4.63.9

5.94.0

4.5

4.4

5.45.02.8

3.8

4.4

4.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

all

responden

ts

men

wom

en

18 -

24

25 -

34

35 -

44

45 -

54

55

and o

lder

basic

educati

on

se

condary

educati

on

hig

her

educati

on

Latv

ians

oth

er

low

incom

e

mediu

m l

ow

incom

e

mediu

m incom

e

mediu

m h

igh incom

e

hig

j in

com

e

Rīg

a

Pie

riga

Vid

ze

me

Kurz

em

e

Zem

ga

le

Latg

ale

Rig

a

oth

er

city

rura

l are

a

there

are

no c

hild

ren u

nd

er

18 in t

he f

am

ily

there

are

child

ren u

nd

er

18 in t

he f

am

ily

%

No answ er

61%-100% of children

41%-60% of children

21%-40% of children

0%-20% of childrenBase: see socio-demographic

profile of respondents at page 5


please estimate, what percentage of them experience corporal punishment (or beating/spanking

as a penalty) in their families." : comparison of data in socio-demographic groups (04.2009.)

When comparing the answers of different socio-demographic groups about the

part of children being subjected to corporal punishment in their families, it can be

concluded that the answers “0% to 20%” were more often than average given by men,

surveyed with basic education and those who live in Vidzeme.

But the participants of the research in the age from 25 to 34, the group with the

higher education, respondents with medium low income, those surveyed in Pieriga and

Vidzeme and respondents who live in rural areas more often than average mentioned the

opinion that, from their point of view, the majority of children in Latvia (61%-100%) are

subjected to corporal punishment it their families.


SKDS, April 2009 10

2. Attitude towards corporal punishment as a method of

upbringing children

The survey also included a question: “In your opinion is corporal punishment of

children a method of upbringing which…” The respondents were asked to choose the

most appropriate answer among the following: ”may be used if the parent believes it will

be effective”, “should not be used in general but there are situations in which it is justified”,

“should never be used”.

Data about the attitude of the population are summarized in the following chart.

should not be used in

general, but there are

situations w hen it is

justif ied

48.8%

should never be used

38.9%

Diff icult to say/NA

3.7%may be used if the

parent believes it w ill

be effective

8.5%

Answers to question: "In your opinion is corporal punishment of children a method of

upbringing which…." (04.2009.)


Research data indicates that the majority of respondents think that corporal

punishment can be used as a method of upbringing – 9% mentioned that corporal

punishment as a method of upbringing ”may be used if the parent believes it will be

effective”, and another 49% said that although it “should not be used in general there are

situations in which it is justified”. The answer “should never be used” was chosen by 39%

of respondents.

Data of the year 2005 and 2009 are compared in the following chart.

48.8

44.7 38.5

3.7

4.7

8.5

12.1

38.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

04.2009. (n=1010)

10.2005. (n=1015)

%

%

may be used if the parent believes it w ill be effective

should not be used in general, but there are situations w hen it is justif ied


Dif f icult to say/NA

Base: all

respondents

Answers to question "In your

opinion is corporal punishment of

children a method of upbringing

which… " : comparison of survey

data in 10.2005. and in 04.2009.

It can be seen that those surveyed in the year 2009 mentioned that corporal

punishment as a method of upbringing ”may be used if the parent believes it will be


SKDS, April 2009 11

effective” more rarely (9%) than those surveyed in the year 2005 (12%). However, the

frequency of marking the answer “should never be used” has not changed significantly

(39% in both surveys)

Data about the attitude towards corporal punishment as a method of upbringing

among different socio-demographic groups is summarized in the following chart.

8.5

10.0

7.2 7.9 9.8

9.6

10.4

15.0

8.5

7.4

10.0

9.4

5.3 12.5

10.6

5.3

4.4 11.7

5.3 10.2

9.9

8.4

8.3

48.8

49.6

48.2

47.5 51.9 59.4

43.6

50.2

47.0

52.9

46.4

47.0

45.2

47.6

44.9 44.2

52.2

54.6

46.4

44.6 36.2 29.1

41.2

42.7 31.1

41.0

36.5

36.4

42.3 32.8

40.5

38.6

39.4

42.7

43.4

38.2 36.4

41.9

37.7

30.5

43.4

41.3 32.1

34.8

41.5

5.2 4.0 1.7

4.9 3.2

3.7

3.5

4.3 3.2

4.3

4.3 3.0 2.4

3.0

3.0

3.7

3.7

4.2 3.9

3.7

4.0

3.4

3.5

3.9

9.1

9.0

5.1

2.7 14.2

13.1

44.3

54.0

43.4 53.5

51.2

53.7 50.5

47.6 44.5

53.2

35.9

38.9

41.6

5.63.0

4.53.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

all

resp

on

de

nts

me

n

wo

me

n

18 -

24

25 -

34

35 -

44

45 -

54

55 a

nd o

lder

ba

sic

edu

ca

tio

n

sec

on

da

ry e

du

ca

tio

n

hig

he

r e

du

ca

tio

n

La

tvia

ns

oth

er

low

inc

om

e

med

ium

low

inc

om

e

me

diu

m in

co

me

me

diu

m h

igh

in

com

e

hig

j in

com

e

Rīg

a

Pie

rig

a

Vid

zem

e

Ku

rzem

e

Ze

mga

le

Latg

ale

Rig

a

oth

er

cit

y

rura

l are

a

the

re a

re n

o c

hild

ren u

nde

r 1

8 in

th

e f

am

ily

there

are

child

ren u

nde

r 1

8 in

th

e f

am

ily

%

Diff icult to say/NA


should not be used in general, but there are situations w hen it is justif ied

may be used if the parent believes it w ill be effectiveBase: see socio-demographic

profile of respondents at page 5

Answers to question: "In your opinion is corporal punishment of children a method of

upbringing which… " : comparison of data in socio-demographic groups (04.2009.)

According to the results of the survey the fact that corporal punishment can be

used as a method of upbringing if parents consider it as effective was more often than

average mentioned by respondents with basic education, group with medium income, as

well as by the participants of the research in Vidzeme, Zemgale and Latgale.

The variant of answer “should not be used in general, but there are situations in

which it is justified” was mentioned more often than average by the population in the age

from 25 to 44, the surveyed with higher education, Latvians, respondents with low income,

those surveyed in Pieriga and Latgale, those living in the rural areas and the participants

of the research who have children younger than 18.

But the respondents in the age from 18 to 24, those older than 55, representatives

of other nationalities, group with high income, as well as those surveyed in Riga and

Kurzeme more often than average are in favor of the opinion that corporal punishment

should never be used as a method of upbringing.

12

Tables of results

Frequencies

1. Regarding the entire population of children in your country as 100%, please estimate, whatpercentage of them experience corporal punishment (or beating/spanking as a penalty) in their families.

6 .7%4 .4%2 .2%1 .1%31 3.1%1 .1%67 6.7%1 .1%32 3.2%1 .1%2 .2%1 .1%94 9.2%35 3.5%1 .1%1 .1%

108 10.7%16 1.6%2 .2%82 8.0%1 .1%16 1.6%164 16.2%8 .8%82 8.0%1 .1%8 .8%1 .1%1 .1%64 6.3%1 .1%9 .9%1 .1%1 .1%1 .1%53 5.1%3 .3%7 .7%2 .2%28 2.9%1 .1%2 .2%4 .5%7 .7%11 1.2%45 4.4%

1010 100.0%

.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

5.00

6.00

10.00

11.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

20.00

25.00

28.00

29.00

30.00

35.00

37.00

40.00

42.00

45.00

50.00

55.00

60.00

63.00

65.00

66.00

68.00

70.00

72.00

75.00

76.00

78.00

79.00

80.00

82.00

85.00

89.00

90.00

94.00

95.00

98.00

99.00

100.00

No answer

Regarding the entire population of childrenin your country as 100%, please estimate,

what percentage of them experiencecorporal punishment (or beating/spanking

as a penalty) in their families.

Total

unweightedcount col %



SKDS, April 2009

13

1. Regarding the entire population of children in your country as 100%, please estimate, whatpercentage of them experience corporal punishment (or beating/spanking as a penalty) in their families.

243 24.1%245 24.2%271 26.7%206 20.6%45 4.4%

1010 100.0%

0%-20% of children

21%-40% of children

41%-60% of children

61%-100% of children

No answer

Regarding the entire population of children in yourcountry as 100%, please estimate, whatpercentage of them experience corporal

punishment (or beating/spanking as a penalty) intheir families.

Total

unweightedcount col %


2. In your opinion is corporal punishment of children a method of upbringing which…

84 8.5%497 48.8%392 38.9%37 3.7%

1010 100.0%

may be used if the parent believes it will be effective

should not be used in general, but there are situations when it is justified


Difficult to say/NA

In your opinion is corporalpunishment of children a method of

upbringing which…

Total

unweighted count col %



SKDS, April 2009

14

Answers in Socio-demographic Groups

1. Regarding the entire population of children in your country as 100%, please estimate, what percentage of them experience corporalpunishment (or beating/spanking as a penalty) in their families.

243 24.1% 245 24.2% 271 26.7% 206 20.6% 45 4.4% 1010 100.0%

128 27.4% 117 25.0% 117 24.7% 85 18.6% 21 4.4% 468 100.0%115 21.2% 128 23.5% 154 28.6% 121 22.4% 24 4.4% 542 100.0% 34 22.8% 38 25.0% 39 25.9% 34 22.4% 6 3.8% 151 100.0%42 21.1% 47 23.4% 46 23.2% 55 27.9% 9 4.5% 199 100.0%46 26.0% 42 23.6% 49 27.4% 36 20.2% 5 2.8% 178 100.0%46 22.9% 44 22.1% 64 31.9% 36 18.1% 10 5.0% 200 100.0%75 26.4% 74 26.0% 73 25.7% 45 16.6% 15 5.4% 282 100.0% 35 31.4% 30 27.9% 24 23.7% 13 12.7% 5 4.4% 107 100.0%

159 23.6% 167 24.4% 186 27.0% 138 20.5% 31 4.5% 681 100.0%

49 22.1% 48 21.6% 61 27.5% 55 24.8% 9 4.0% 222 100.0%

144 23.5% 155 25.5% 167 27.5% 122 20.1% 21 3.3% 609 100.0%99 24.8% 90 22.4% 104 25.7% 84 21.2% 24 5.9% 401 100.0%

148 23.9% 151 24.5% 171 27.9% 125 20.4% 21 3.3% 616 100.0%94 24.6% 93 23.9% 97 24.8% 79 20.6% 24 6.1% 387 100.0%1 15.5% 1 14.1% 3 41.3% 2 29.1% 7 100.0%

203 23.6% 210 24.5% 229 26.7% 180 21.1% 36 4.1% 858 100.0%40 26.4% 35 22.7% 42 27.1% 26 18.0% 9 5.8% 152 100.0% 48 23.9% 43 22.4% 56 28.6% 43 21.6% 7 3.5% 197 100.0%87 24.1% 88 23.5% 98 26.0% 80 21.8% 17 4.6% 370 100.0%108 24.2% 114 25.5% 117 26.5% 83 19.1% 21 4.7% 443 100.0% 21 32.5% 15 23.0% 13 19.1% 14 20.9% 3 4.5% 66 100.0%51 22.8% 50 22.1% 61 27.5% 50 21.7% 13 5.9% 225 100.0%52 24.9% 49 23.8% 58 26.9% 45 22.1% 5 2.3% 209 100.0%6 22.2% 4 15.8% 9 34.9% 7 27.1% 26 100.0%5 13.6% 13 30.2% 13 31.3% 7 17.5% 3 7.3% 41 100.0%51 27.4% 46 24.5% 49 26.3% 27 15.3% 12 6.4% 185 100.0%17 25.0% 20 28.0% 14 20.3% 16 22.7% 3 4.0% 70 100.0%7 16.2% 8 20.6% 12 32.2% 11 28.8% 1 2.3% 39 100.0%33 21.8% 40 26.9% 42 28.3% 29 19.6% 5 3.5% 149 100.0% 28 19.4% 25 17.3% 50 36.2% 31 22.4% 7 4.8% 141 100.0%28 19.8% 35 25.4% 35 26.1% 33 24.8% 5 3.9% 136 100.0%39 25.8% 36 23.1% 45 29.1% 26 17.4% 7 4.6% 153 100.0%33 24.3% 31 23.0% 39 28.3% 28 20.9% 5 3.5% 136 100.0%36 25.9% 34 24.5% 36 24.9% 29 20.3% 6 4.4% 141 100.0%79 26.4% 84 27.7% 66 21.7% 59 19.4% 15 4.8% 303 100.0% 90 26.5% 82 23.8% 91 26.5% 58 16.9% 21 6.2% 342 100.0%32 19.3% 31 19.2% 46 27.7% 46 27.7% 10 6.2% 165 100.0%34 29.9% 36 31.9% 19 16.4% 19 16.5% 6 5.3% 114 100.0%31 26.1% 31 25.3% 32 26.2% 23 19.0% 4 3.4% 121 100.0%24 22.7% 29 27.2% 28 26.2% 25 23.9% 106 100.0%32 19.7% 36 21.9% 55 34.0% 35 21.9% 4 2.5% 162 100.0% 90 26.5% 82 23.8% 91 26.5% 58 16.9% 21 6.2% 342 100.0%78 23.1% 90 26.1% 95 28.6% 62 18.4% 13 3.8% 338 100.0%75 22.7% 73 22.5% 85 25.0% 86 26.4% 11 3.3% 330 100.0% 91 24.8% 81 21.9% 96 26.6% 85 23.3% 13 3.5% 366 100.0%152 23.8% 163 25.5% 173 26.6% 121 19.1% 32 5.0% 641 100.0% 1 29.6% 2 70.4% 3 100.0%

All respondents

.

Men

Women

Sex

.

18 - 24

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 and older

Age

.

Basic education

Secondary, secondary vocational

educationHigher education

Education

.

Latvian

other

Nationality

.

Latvian

Russian

other

Language of

conversation in thefamily

.

LR citizens


Citizenship

.

Public sector

Private sector

Unemployed

Sector of

employment

.

Manager

Specialist, state official

Worker

Farmer

Self-employed

Retired

Pupil, student

Housewife

Unemployed

Occupation

.

low: till LVL99

medium low: LVL100 to LVL129

medium: LVL130 to LVL170

medium high:LVL171 to LVL259

high: LVL260 and more

Don't know/NA

Average income

per family memberin a month

.

Riga

Pieriga

Vidzeme

Kurzeme

Zemgale

Latgale

Region

.

Riga

other city

rural areas

Type of residential

area

.

Yes

No

NA

Are there children

under 18 in your

family?

unw.

count row %

0%-20% ofchildren

unw.

count row %

21%-40% ofchildren

unw.

count row %

41%-60% ofchildren

unw.

count row %

61%-100% ofchildren

unw.

count row %

No answer

Regarding the entire population of children in your country as 100%, please estimate, what

percentage of them experience corporal punishment (or beating/spanking as a penalty) in their

families.

unw.

count row %

Total



SKDS, April 2009

15

2. In your opinion is corporal punishment of children a method of upbringing which…

84 8.5% 497 48.8% 392 38.9% 37 3.7% 1010 100.0% 46 10.0% 235 49.6% 166 35.9% 21 4.5% 468 100.0%38 7.2% 262 48.2% 226 41.6% 16 3.0% 542 100.0% 4 2.7% 72 47.5% 67 44.6% 8 5.2% 151 100.0%15 7.9% 104 51.9% 72 36.2% 8 4.0% 199 100.0%17 9.8% 107 59.4% 51 29.1% 3 1.7% 178 100.0%19 9.6% 90 44.3% 82 41.2% 9 4.9% 200 100.0%29 10.4% 124 43.6% 120 42.7% 9 3.2% 282 100.0% 15 15.0% 54 50.2% 34 31.1% 4 3.7% 107 100.0%

58 8.5% 323 47.0% 277 41.0% 23 3.5% 681 100.0%

11 5.1% 120 54.0% 81 36.5% 10 4.3% 222 100.0% 45 7.4% 322 52.9% 222 36.4% 20 3.2% 609 100.0%39 10.0% 175 43.4% 170 42.3% 17 4.3% 401 100.0% 52 8.7% 324 52.4% 220 35.6% 20 3.3% 616 100.0%31 8.1% 171 44.0% 169 43.7% 16 4.2% 387 100.0%1 14.7% 2 29.1% 3 44.4% 1 11.8% 7 100.0% 69 8.3% 438 50.8% 319 37.1% 32 3.8% 858 100.0%15 9.7% 59 38.6% 73 48.3% 5 3.4% 152 100.0% 14 7.6% 97 48.8% 77 39.0% 9 4.7% 197 100.0%27 7.4% 201 53.7% 132 36.1% 10 2.9% 370 100.0%43 9.9% 199 44.8% 183 41.4% 18 4.0% 443 100.0% 5 8.3% 38 55.6% 18 28.2% 5 7.8% 66 100.0%19 8.5% 112 49.3% 90 40.3% 4 1.8% 225 100.0%16 8.0% 107 51.0% 78 37.1% 8 3.9% 209 100.0%1 3.5% 16 61.7% 8 30.9% 1 4.0% 26 100.0% 25 59.8% 15 37.0% 1 3.2% 41 100.0%24 13.2% 80 42.8% 75 40.8% 6 3.2% 185 100.0%1 1.9% 30 42.7% 35 49.9% 4 5.6% 70 100.0%2 5.7% 24 60.8% 12 30.9% 1 2.5% 39 100.0%16 10.6% 65 44.0% 61 40.7% 7 4.7% 149 100.0% 13 9.4% 75 53.5% 47 32.8% 6 4.3% 141 100.0%7 5.3% 70 51.2% 55 40.5% 4 3.0% 136 100.0%19 12.5% 72 46.4% 58 38.6% 4 2.4% 153 100.0%14 10.6% 64 47.0% 54 39.4% 4 3.0% 136 100.0%12 9.1% 65 45.2% 60 42.7% 4 3.0% 141 100.0%19 6.3% 151 49.4% 118 39.3% 15 5.1% 303 100.0% 18 5.3% 163 47.6% 148 43.4% 13 3.7% 342 100.0%7 4.4% 89 53.7% 63 38.2% 6 3.7% 165 100.0%15 13.1% 57 50.5% 42 36.4% 114 100.0%11 9.0% 55 44.9% 50 41.9% 5 4.2% 121 100.0%14 14.2% 48 44.2% 40 37.7% 4 3.9% 106 100.0%19 11.7% 85 52.2% 49 30.5% 9 5.6% 162 100.0% 18 5.3% 163 47.6% 148 43.4% 13 3.7% 342 100.0%34 10.2% 153 44.5% 138 41.3% 13 4.0% 338 100.0%32 9.9% 181 54.6% 106 32.1% 11 3.4% 330 100.0% 29 8.4% 196 53.2% 128 34.8% 13 3.5% 366 100.0%53 8.3% 300 46.4% 264 41.5% 24 3.9% 641 100.0%2 60.7% 1 39.3% 3 100.0%

All respondents

.

Men

Women

Sex

.

18 - 24

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 and older

Age

.

Basic education

Secondary, secondary vocational

educationHigher education

Education

.

Latvian

other

Nationality

.

Latvian

Russian

other

Language of

conversation in the

family

.

LR citizens


Citizenship

.

Public sector

Private sector

Unemployed

Sector of employment

.

Manager

Specialist, state official

Worker

Farmer

Self-employed

Retired

Pupil, student

Housewife

Unemployed

Occupation

.

low: till LVL99

medium low: LVL100 to LVL129

medium: LVL130 to LVL170

medium high:LVL171 to LVL259

high: LVL260 and more

Don't know/NA

Average income per

family member in a

month

.

Riga

Pieriga

Vidzeme

Kurzeme

Zemgale

Latgale

Region

.

Riga

other city

rural areas

Type of residential

area

.

Yes

No

NA

Are there children

under 18 in your

family?

unw.

count row %

may be used if theparent believes it will

be effective

unw. count row %

should not be used in

general, but there are

situations when it is

justified

unw. count row %


unw. count row %

Difficult to say/NA

In your opinion is corporal punishment of children a method of upbringing which…

unw. count row %

Total



SKDS, April 2009

16

17

Questionnaire used in the survey


SKDS, April 2009 18

1. Regarding the entire population of children in your country as 100%, please estimate, what percentage of them experience corporal punishment (or beating/spanking as a penalty) in their families. Please complete the following sentence: (fill in the corresponding figure in the appropriate space) Physical punishment is experienced by ..............% of children in Latvia 2. In your opinion is corporal punishment of children a method of upbringing which…. (Mark one answer)

may be used if the parent believes it will be effective 1

should not be used in general, but there are situations when it is justified 2

should never be used 3

Difficult to say/NA 8

SKDS

marketing and public opinion research centre

Baznicas str. 32-2, Riga, Latvia, LV-1010

Phone: +371 7 312 876, Fax: +371 7 312 874

E-mail: [email protected]

www.skds.lv

Attitude towards corporal punishment of children - … research Latvia 2009.pdf · Research:...

Documents

Transcript of Attitude towards corporal punishment of children - … research Latvia 2009.pdf · Research:...